Legal Opinion

Burden of Proof in Drug Offenses

Pennsylvania Department of Justice

Decided July 30, 1975No. Official Opinion No. 75-24Published

1Opinion of the Court

REITER, Special Deputy Attorney General, YAKOWICZ, Solicitor General, and KANE, Attorney General,

You have inquired as to whether the Commonwealth is required, in prosecutions under the Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act of April 14, 1972, P.L. 233 (No. 64), sec. 13(a)(30), 35 P.S. §780-113(a)(30) (hereinafter the “Controlled Substance Act”), to plead and prove that defendant is not registered under the act or licensed as a practitioner by the appropriate State board.

You are advised that the Commonwealth is not so required and that section 21 of the Controlled Substance Act…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. McKelvey v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1922
  2. Commonwealth v. McNeilSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1975
  3. Commonwealth v. StoffanSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1974
  4. Commonwealth v. AikensSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1955
  5. Arnold Gerald Tritt v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1970

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API